Why do you object to morals? Many atheists on this forum like to brag about how much moral than believers they are. Well, what are they using for a standard then?
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
Then don't expect us to pay for it either. If scientists want to butcher babies in the name of progress, they can do it on their own dime. Which, for that matter, should be how all scientific research should be done. The government should not be funding scientific research to begin with because there's too little in the way of safeguards to keep politics out of it. It should not be government subsidized elitist welfare.
I’d add to this that to allow no ethics or morality in science research is a scary suggestion indeed. Under CE’s statement that doing so is a theocracy, there is nothing wrong with raising a human in a cage to see what effects a life of cage-life has on the human mind. His absolutist position is ridiculous.
Why do you object to morals?
I don't.
Many atheists on this forum like to brag about how much moral than believers they are.
"More" moral?
Well, what are they using for a standard then?
Didn't I already answer this in a different thread? Oy.
It is entirely possible to have an objective, reality-based morality. Objectivism is the strongest contender in this area.
Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is the best introduction.
I have my disagreements with Objectivism, abortion for example, but by and large I agree.
The Golden Rule works as a principle for most situations.
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
Then don't expect us to pay for it either.
Oh, I agree. I'd prefer most research to be left to universities, corporations, and individuals.
If scientists want to butcher babies in the name of progress, they can do it on their own dime.
That would be a violation of the baby's right to life.
It should not be government subsidized elitist welfare.
And by "elitist" you mean "scientist".